Jan 7, 2010 11:12:09 AM

We in Division II are about to consider a proposal at the upcoming Convention that revises our organized-competition rule, perhaps in a way that compromises a core participation philosophy that makes Division II so unique.

As a recent article in The NCAA News points out, this important piece of legislation has been flying somewhat under the radar due to the fanfare surrounding the Life in the Balance package.

As mentioned in the News story, Proposal No. 2010-11 more broadly defines activities that constitute organized competition. They include such routine measures as whether official score is kept, team standings or statistics are maintained or team uniforms are used. While those rudimentary factors establish a low threshold for what constitutes organized competition, the parameters are absent of one significant factor, which is whether players receive compensation.

Compensation is part of the existing rule, but the Division II Legislation Committee, which developed the 2010 Convention proposal, and the Division II Presidents Council that sponsored it don't think compensation accurately determines whether the competition is "organized" since even players who aren't paid trigger the rule if their teammates are.

The proposed change also introduces a year-long "grace period" for prospects to participate in organized competition without penalty.

To me, the proposed change smacks of a de facto "age rule" that is contrary to the philosophic core of Division II.   

Many of our institutions in these difficult economic times like to recruit older students.  Some of them like to participate in athletics. If we pass this proposal in its present form, we will eliminate most, if not all, older student-athletes from future participation in Division II. 

In my mind, the goal of our existing organized-competition rule when it was established was to make sure proven professionals were recognized, if possible, and that actions were taken to try to reduce the flow of those prospects into Division II or to at least reduce their impact.

No one expected this effort to be particularly easy (it is extremely difficult to determine whether a prospect has been "professionalized"), and the membership is still finding its way, as evidenced by a sharp increase in appeals over the last several years. However, going from 12 to 48 appeals is not a reason to change a core principle that distinguishes Division II from the other two divisions.

Also troubling is the proposal's shift in assumption of guilt. The current rule suggests all prospects are innocent until proven guilty, but the proposed change broadens the definition of organized competition seemingly to the point that any participant is guilty. Stating it is "too hard" to prove someone guilty is not a reason to assume all are guilty and then must prove themselves innocent.

I would prefer that a few guilty prospects escape the clutches of our eligibility rules than to eliminate the opportunity for almost all individuals beyond the "normal" college age range of 18-23 to participate in Division II. In addition, stating we've had an increase in the number of violations in this area the last few years is not a sound rationale for such a drastic change. Schools decide whom they wish to recruit. It also tells me the process is working.

Let the learning curve continue to take effect, and the number of appeals and violations is bound to decrease. But we should not take action now to change a unique characteristic of our division by creating a de facto age rule.

The last time this came up for discussion at the Convention, I stated that I did not want to have to tell a 50-year-old returning student that he could not participate in rifle because he was too old and had participated in some recreational contests during the previous 30 years.

I state the same today. Our lack of an age rule is not only an advantage for us as a division, but it also is a student-friendly, nondiscriminatory initiative that actually recognizes today's older demographic profile, and helps some of us enhance our enrollment. 

The current process is working, and delegates should carefully consider the ramifications of such a drastic change when they cast their votes next week.

Kelly Higgins is the director of athletics at Fort Lewis College.